How do you like the Woodstock calculators?

[vassilisprevelakis]

The Woodstock's came before my time, so I have to admit that I am not burdened by nostalgia when using them. So ...

Actually, I hate the Woodstock series because of of their physical design. The case is such that you don't have a good view of the display when they are on the desk, and the display does not have enough digits.

The case looks like a bathtub and gives the impression that cost cutting was the prime consideration in their design.

So with the Woodstock's out, what would be my choice for a LED calculator?

Nowadays, programming a LED calculator is a waste of time. Dealing with the numeric encoding of the instructions is a pain, and anyway programs take too long to run. So wasting keyboard real estate for programming instructions (e.g. SST/BST, GTO, GSB etc.) is counter productive.

In other words a non-programmable LED calculator has more useful operations directly accessible via single key presses.

For this reason I think the HP-32E is probably the best LED calculator for today's use.

Unfortunately, I don't own a 32E, so I have compromised on a 33C which also has continuous memory.

A good runner up (albeit with a larger format) is the 19C which has the bonus of continuous memory AND printing.

Finally, for desktop use, the HP-97 is king, with its huge display and amazing keyboard.

**vp

http://www.series80.org

[BobVA]

(12-14-2021 04:05 PM)vassilisprevelakis Wrote:  ....Nowadays, programming a LED calculator is a waste of time. Dealing with the numeric encoding of the instructions is a pain, and anyway programs take too long to run. So wasting keyboard real estate for programming instructions (e.g. SST/BST, GTO, GSB etc.) is counter productive...

Point taken but...there's programming and then there's programming :-)

The first case, which I think you've dispatched, is complex numerical programs with no means of saving / restoring programs. These types of programs have minimal input data and large amounts of computation / run time. For that it makes more sense to use a spreadsheet or MATLAB or whatever these days.

But for a quick (say 10-15 step) program that is going to be used on multiple cases of manually entered data, that "program" is really just a way to quickly extend the keyboard functionality.
If I need to, say, convert several dBm settings to watts, then turn a dial on a lab instrument, an on-the-fly / one-off program can be quite a help, and more convenient than setting up a spread sheet on a computer. I still do that sort of thing with with my HP-25 today.

[Mike T.]

(12-14-2021 04:05 PM)vassilisprevelakis Wrote:  Actually, I hate the Woodstock series because of of their physical design. The case is such that you don't have a good view of the display when they are on the desk, and the display does not have enough digits.

The case looks like a bathtub and gives the impression that cost cutting was the prime consideration in their design.

So with the Woodstock's out, what would be my choice for a LED calculator?

I'd agree with you about the display angle though this is solved if you position the calculator closer to you so you are looking down on it, and as I'm not as young as I was being closer also means I can see the digits!

However, that is about the only bad thing about them really. As a student I always wanted a 29C and this has always been my 'ultimate' calculator, unfortunately at the time they were too expensive and hard to find. It seems some things never change.

I do accept that no LED calculator is ever going to compete with a more modern machines in terms of speed or functionality but I never found the limitations of the display a problem when programming, as the common key codes are easily remembered, and it is very easy to find any you don't recognise.

Of all the machines I own I would have to say that the 33C is still my favourite. It just works, and the only thing I'd change would be to give it more memory (and these days an SD card!). When I could afford it, I did get a 34C (as the 29C was no longer available) and although it is an amazing machine it just doesn't seem isn't as intuitive to use as the 33C, though I remember that there wasn't a lot it couldn't do.

As with all the LED models battery life was always a bit of an issue, even with a spare battery pack, so I brought a 10C to replace my 33C a couple of years later and almost immediately upgraded to an 11C as with just two conditional tests and no subroutines programming on the 10C is painful! Fortunately compared to other models it wasn't expensive, though it was too expensive to throw away so as no one else I knew wanted to buy it I became one of the few people to still have one.

A while later I brought a more modern 32S to replace the 34C. It has even more functions than the 34C, complex numbers, a solver and is much faster but despite this but the only reason I now use it as my everyday machine is that it does base conversions and the battery life means that when I switch it on it usually works!

If I'd not seen it reduced in a shop window in Tottenham Court Road I probably would not have brought it as by the time I got it I'd all but finished doing things that needed an advanced calculator. I've been tempted by the HP42S a couple of times but really can't justify upgrading again and one thing I have learnt from the 32S is that I really don't like menu driven interfaces.

Guess I've been spoilt by the HP33C after all. (I'll still get a 29C one day..!)

[Trond]

I do have a 34-C in pretty nice condition, is the 33-C similar in overall build? My impression is that the Woodstock calculators are more sturdy. My 34C is lightweight, and I can imagine that it cracks sometimes, but mine is working pretty darn good

[Greg]

The 30 series were after my time. I started with a HP-25 and it got upgraded after a week or two to a HP-25C which had just come out. I don't know if my dad paid for an upgrade or whether HP just swapped it over for him but it was a really nice change. Keying in programs and then losing them when powering off was quite a pain.

With a lot of time and saving, I eventually moved to a HP-67 and having a card reader solved the pain multiple times. Jim Horn is certainly memorable in HP-67 circles.

The path to the '67 did result in me getting an interim HP-29C as stock of the HP-67 in Australia was low (according to the salesman) at the time so I also got to enjoy the 29. It was very similar to the 25 but had so much more in it, despite the very similar keyboard. There were even a few times when I thought whilst using my treasured 67 that this would have been easier with the 29! I know - wash my mouth out with soap and water - but there were a few.

The woodstocks were all lovely calculators. They were great in their day and they did teach me programming long before attending my first computer class. A part of history.

[Jim Horn]

Do remember that the Woodstocks were introduced with the HP-25 which was the first programmable calculator for US$199. While not as powerful as the '65 or '55, it wasn't far behind them at a fraction of the price and yet with HP's great keys, construction, etc. (I'll ignore the horrible battery charging). But I knew how useful even limited programming would be and waited for its introduction, resulting in my being the only Electrical Engineer in my graduating class still using a slide rule as I knew it would be out weeks later, due to pointed hints from an HP source (cf. H^2).

While only 49 steps and 10 storage registers sounds pitifully small today, it was more than the non-existent competition. During the year I had mine, it served me very well. During Communications-Electronics Engineering training for US Air Force officers, it and I quickly became known as the go-to number crunchers for the entire class as I could churn out equation values far, far faster than the others who had non-programmable machines.

The only reasons I gave it away was that I bought an HP-67 the day it became available. And my younger brother, who was fascinated with the '25, was delighted to be given it. He really dove into pushing its limits to the maximum, resulting in his becoming one of the PPC Hall of Fame mentions due to his articles about it.

Some day I will have to answer to St. Peter for introducing him to HP calculators. And motorcycles. And.......

[Ross Barnes]

Back in the 70's on two separate occasions I whipped my 29C onto a concrete floor when I managed to wrap my ankle around the charging cable hanging off the back of the desk. The first time I was horrified then relieved to find no sign of damage. I vowed to to pay more attention to the charging cable. The second time it happened I was mentally kicking myself but once again relieved to find no sign of damage. There was no third time...I moved the charging cable to the side of the desk. The charging system may have been Woodstock's Achilles' heel but it was impervious to my stupidity.

[Jake Schwartz]

(12-27-2021 11:31 PM)Jim Horn Wrote:  ... as I knew it would be out weeks later, due to pointed hints from an HP source (cf. H^2).

Uncle Henry is sorely missed :-(

[BobVA]

(12-27-2021 11:31 PM)Jim Horn Wrote:  ...(I'll ignore the horrible battery charging).

Seeing this in a historical context made me think. I used the heck out of my 25 in college and I'm sure I probably powered it up without a battery pack, or with a poorly connected one, more than once. Never had a problem. The only time HP saw it again was for the ROM update.

Today? It's just slightly below dropping a case of leaky dynamite on my list of actions to avoid.

Is that just perception? Or is the risk greater? I'm wondering if the age of the ACT chip has significantly raised the risk of damage.

[rprosperi]

(12-29-2021 06:30 PM)BobVA Wrote:  

(12-27-2021 11:31 PM)Jim Horn Wrote:  ...(I'll ignore the horrible battery charging).

Seeing this in a historical context made me think. I used the heck out of my 25 in college and I'm sure I probably powered it up without a battery pack, or with a poorly connected one, more than once. Never had a problem. The only time HP saw it again was for the ROM update.

Today? It's just slightly below dropping a case of leaky dynamite on my list of actions to avoid.

Is that just perception? Or is the risk greater? I'm wondering if the age of the ACT chip has significantly raised the risk of damage.

I've wondered this exact same thing Bob! I had a '21 and then a '25 in college and I certainly never gave charging them carefully a 2nd thought back in the day, and while it's possible I never plugged it in w/o batteries, or bumped it hard/dropped it while charging, all that is pretty unlikely, yet neither device ever failed or even flickered a tiny bit.

I too have concluded that age is key ingredient in this infamous Woodstock susceptibility, but what is affected, and how, is unclear to me. AFAIK (and I don't know much at all about this) chips don't age in the sense that they are more prone to fail as they get older, right? If someone can explain this, I'd love to learn more about it.

[Kostas Kritsilas]

(12-30-2021 02:34 AM)rprosperi Wrote:  I too have concluded that age is key ingredient in this infamous Woodstock susceptibility, but what is affected, and how, is unclear to me. AFAIK (and I don't know much at all about this) chips don't age in the sense that they are more prone to fail as they get older, right? If someone can explain this, I'd love to learn more about it.

Bob:

Chips can certainly "age". While this is not specific to the ACT, there have been documented cases of chips failing over time due to defects in the way the base silicon was "doped", corrosion of the leads, plastics (used for the cases) deteriorating, and a number of other things. Just check, for example, the audio chips on the Commodore C64 (approximately same age as the Classics and Woodstocks). A significant percentage of them have gone "bad", and this includes units that were never even soldered onto boards. There are many cases of chips going bad on all sorts of electronics that were put away for many years that were functional when put aside. A lot of this is not a wear out mechanism, but more related to the way the parts were manufactured and possibly the chemistry involved. This extends to not only complex ICs, but to basic "glue logic" 74XXYY parts.

[Tom Flatterhand]

Last week I bought an optically mint HP-29C at auction and it immediately became the star of my small collection. Why is that?

When I was 12, I bought a Privileg PR-56 D-NC from the German mail order company Quelle. This calculator had only 72 program steps and unfortunately they couldn't accommodate keyboard shortcuts either. As a comparison condition, there was only a test for negative numbers. That was all and still I learned programming with it and it certainly influenced my further life. In my collection there are also a HP-41CX and a HP-42S (whose non-contrast display is just bad) and also calculators of other brands. However, I could not afford these devices in my youth. At that time I would have always liked to have a Hewlett-Packard! With the HP-29C I have the feeling to hold one of the first programmable calculators ever in my hands. Compared to my Privileg PR-56 D-NC, it is so much better, even though it is from the same era.

For example the 8 comparison conditions, which in many cases make complicated detours in the code unnecessary, indirect addressing of the registers, the 3 subroutine levels, the labels, 'continuous memory', the 98 combined steps, the keys, the nice case, its compactness, the processing. You know it all.

To me, this calculator has the essential essence of all programmable calculators. Even though the HP-25 and HP-65 were the very first, you could say that the HP people were still practicing a bit there and only the HP-29C has everything that was really necessary for a simple programmable calculator! Of course, nowadays I don't really want to develop a big program on it. This is much better with Eclipse or Visual Studio. A programmable calculator is just not suitable for that. That's why it makes no sense that they get more and more memory or alphanumeric displays. Ok, that was already nice with the HP-41C or the Casio FX-602P (Whose LCD matrix display is very good) . But with this it is also good.

As someone here already wrote: Just quickly type in the formula for calculating the parallel resistor and do some calculations, those are their real tasks. But: Without Continuous Memory these things are just extremely annoying. A card reader will always break and I don't need a printer to experience the pure pleasure of programming. I love pulling my new old HP-29C out of a bag and putting it in my hand. It looks like it did on a brochure from back in the day and takes me back to a time when I was happy when the program to calculate the GGT's ran correctly for the first time.

[Kees Bouw]

rprosperi ' Wrote:  I too have concluded that age is key ingredient in this infamous Woodstock susceptibility, but what is affected, and how, is unclear to me. AFAIK (and I don't know much at all about this) chips don't age in the sense that they are more prone to fail as they get older, right? If someone can explain this, I'd love to learn more about it.

A very good way to reduce the lifespan of chips is to use them at a voltage that is too high, like using alkaline batteries in Woodstocks.

[Steve Simpkin]

I used my HP-25 for almost 10 years as my only calculator through high school, 4 years of collage and 2 years at my first job as an electrical engineer. I too never gave charging a second thought although I never plugged the charger in without a battery pack installed. Around year 8 or 9 the batteries would no longer hold a charge and I switched to using alkaline batteries. I was concerned about the higher voltage from using alakalines so I cut the battery springs apart and soldered a silicon diode between them to drop a the voltage a bit. This seemed to work ok but around a year later, I started experiencing glitches in its operation. I ended up replacing it with a new HP-11C. At some point I removed the diode and soldered the spring back together and it has been working happily on alkaline batteries ever since. I suspect the diode was dropping too much voltage or it’s series resistance was too much. The 0.5 higher voltage from using alakalines does not seemed to have harmed it.

[Thomas Klemm]

(03-31-2022 06:05 AM)Tom Flatterhand Wrote:  Just quickly type in the formula for calculating the parallel resistor and do some calculations, those are their real tasks.

You might enjoy: EE calculations, some not obvious

(03-31-2022 06:05 AM)Tom Flatterhand Wrote:  It looks like it did on a brochure from back in the day and takes me back to a time when I was happy when the program to calculate the GGT's ran correctly for the first time.

Here's my attempt:

Code:

01: 15 13 01 : g LBL 1
02: 31       : ENTER
03: 31       : ENTER
04: 22       : Rv
05: 22       : Rv
06: 22       : Rv
07: 15 13 00 : g LBL 0
08: 31       : ENTER
09: 22       : Rv
10: 71       : /
11: 14 73    : f LASTx
12: 21       : x<->y
13: 14 62    : f INT
14: 61       : *
15: 41       : -
16: 15 61    : g x<>0
17: 13 00    : GTO 0
18: 22       : Rv
19: 15 12    : g RTN

Example

259
ENTER
111
GSB 1

37.00

Those who don't own a real HP-29C can use this emulator.
Click on the display, select Prog/Data and copy the program if you don't want to enter it manually.

[Tom Flatterhand]

Hi Thomas,

(04-01-2022 01:02 AM)Thomas Klemm Wrote:  You might enjoy: EE calculations, some not obvious

thanks for your reference to the interesting methods of doing electronics with a programmable calculator! But although I once learned to be a radio electronics engineer, I have been working as a computer scientist for over 30 years. Therefore I use formulas from electronics only very rarely. Only here I have again taken a little further:

https://steinlaus.de/licht-messen-mit-de...ngsteiler/

I hope it's all true what I wrote there. :-)

Because of your short GGT code I felt obliged to program the GGT again. :

Code:

01 15 13 00 : LBL 0
02    23 02 : STO 2
03       21 : x<>y
04    23 01 : STO 1
05       71 : /
06    14 62 : INT
07    24 01 : RCL 1
08       61 : x
09    24 02 : RCL 2
10       21 : x<>y
11       41 : -
12    15 71 : x=0?
13    13 01 : GTO 1
14    24 01 : RCL 1
15    13 00 : GTO 0
16 15 13 01 : LBL 1
17    24 01 : RCL 1
18    15 12 : RTN

This variant has one less step but requires registers. However, I have to enter the small number first and then the big one. So:

Example

42
Enter
93
GSB 0
3.00


And here is another variant without the use of registers. But the variant is just as long as yours.:

Code:

01 15 13 00 : LBL 0
02       21 : x<>y
03       31 : ENTER
04       22 : R˅
05       22 : R˅
06       21 : x<>y
07       22 : R˅
08       71 : /
09    14 73 : LAST X
10       31 : ENTER
11       22 : R˅
12       21 : x<>y
13    14 62 : INT
14       61 : *
15       41 : -
16    15 61 : x<>0?
17    13 00 : GTO 0
18       22 : R˅
19    15 12 : RTN

Example

98
Enter
35
GSB 0
7.00


I wanted to note that I used a DM42 for the initial ideas for handling the stack, since I have an overview of the stack there. The actual program then developed with the 'go34c' app on a smartphone and only after completion tested the program on my HP-34C. An editor for first algorithm ideas was also still in the game. :-)

[jjohnson873]

Ahhh....I can feel the warm blanket of '70's computer/calculator nostalgia. Isn't your first calculator like your first girlfriend? In my case, the HP-25 was my first. I must have poured hours, days, weeks into learning every nook and cranny about programming my HP-25 while in college. I took the last slide rule class offered at my college and never looked back. The glow of the HP-25 display never failed to fascinate me and certainly cemented my decision to graduate with my EE degree. Gone are the days of that technology leap and now has given way to ever more powerful mobile computing platforms.
It's a bit of melancholy to hear of the passing of Tandy's John Roach a little over a week ago. I sold many 74HCT I.C.'s to Tandy/Radio Shack for the TRS-80 line of computers as they changed over from LS-TTL to the power sipping HC/HCT devices. But I digress.
Introduced in 1975, with the form fit of the HP-25 to your hand, the bright LED display to the high quality keys that never failed to provide a perfect response. What other items can last nearly 50 years with hardly any degradation in performance?
The HP-25 certainly isn't as powerful as today's calculators or mobile phones. But it still stands tall as a revolutionary design and holds a place in history as one of HP's classic designs that has carried many engineers through their college years and as a great design tool in many engineering companies.

[Tom Flatterhand]

(04-01-2022 09:09 PM)jjohnson873 Wrote:  Isn't your first calculator like your first girlfriend?

That was the time when girls and programmable calculators were about equal for me. But since it was sometimes difficult with the girls, the programmable ones were a welcome change and gave you great satisfaction when you finished a program, which was a little compensation. But also the girls came at some point to the course. :-)

Since touching such a beautiful specimen of a Woodstock device takes one back in time like a trip back in time, maybe the girls from back then are close again? :-)

It's like vintage cars, they can still get you to and from work or you can take a trip with them. The HP-29C is still a technical-scientific calculator and could still hold its own in school.

Still, I'm careful when I pick it up. It is a relic from another time, Who knows what the 43 years have done, whether plastics have diffused and become brittle? Whether electronic components have degraded in some way? Capacitors burst or leaked? You don't want to push it to the limit anymore. You don't want to drive 200 km/h with the old Porsche (I have no old porsche :-) ) anymore and you don't want to type your fingers sore on the old keys while programming. They are so beautiful! I feel sorry for the sweetheart and don't want to wear it out too much anymore. That's why I developed the two GGT programs on an emulator (go29c) on an Android smartphone and only transferred them to the HP-29C when they were ready.

[Thomas Klemm]

(04-01-2022 05:20 PM)Tom Flatterhand Wrote:  Only here I have again taken a little further:

https://steinlaus.de/licht-messen-mit-de...ngsteiler/

I hope it's all true what I wrote there. :-)

That's a nice blog that you have. Thanks for sharing.

Quote:Festwiderstand: Bei 100 Ohm fällt am Lichtwiderstand eine Spannung zwischen 3.26 und 3.29 Volt ab.

That first value should be 1.65 instead of 3.26.
If both resistors are 100Ω they divide the 3.3V evenly.

Also most circuits measure V_out over the fixed resistor so that voltage increases as light increases:


But what do I know?

(04-01-2022 05:20 PM)Tom Flatterhand Wrote:  Because of your short GGT code I felt obliged to program the GGT again.

Here's a variant that uses one register:

Code:

01: 15 13 00 : g LBL 0
02: 23 00    : STO 0
03: 21       : x<->y
04: 31       : ENTER
05: 31       : ENTER
06: 24 00    : RCL 0
07: 71       : /
08: 14 62    : f INT
09: 24 00    : RCL 0
10: 61       : *
11: 41       : -
12: 15 61    : g x<>0
13: 13 00    : GTO 0
14: 24 00    : RCL 0
15: 15 12    : g RTN

My favourite program for the HP-29C is: Prime numbers up to 10'000.

[BobVA]

(04-02-2022 08:01 AM)Tom Flatterhand Wrote:  That was the time when girls and programmable calculators were about equal for me. But since it was sometimes difficult with the girls, the programmable ones were a welcome change and gave you great satisfaction when you finished a program, which was a little compensation. But also the girls came at some point to the course. :-)

I was super lucky and didn't have to pick. My girlfriend was constantly filching my HP-25 and keying in the lunar lander program from the little notebook I carried in the case :-)